INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE THAT THE CLINTONS ARE CLOSET CONSERVATIVES, CORRUPT, AND COLLUDED WITH RONALD REAGAN TO VICTIMIZE THE BLACK COMMUNITY

Beneath the Spin * Eric L. Wattree

INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE THAT THE CLINTONS ARE CLOSET CONSERVATIVES, CORRUPT, AND COLLUDED WITH RONALD REAGAN TO VICTIMIZE
THE BLACK COMMUNITY
.

I’ve been researching the Clintons for over 20 years, every since they conned the Black community into giving them our devotion (“The first Black President”), blood, sweat, and tears, and then cut our throats as soon as they set foot in the White House.
.
Many journalists consider me an expert on Tavis Smiley and Cornel West. They routinely contact me as part of their research whenever they do an article on either one of them. Well, I know twice as much about Bill and Hillary Clinton, because I’ve been researching them for twice as long - In fact, Tavis’ strong support of Hillary over Obama in 2008 is what caused me to start researching him and West, because as a result of my long years of research on the Clintons, it is my position that ANY Black person who supports  Bill and Hillary Clinton is the direct equivalent of a civil rights worker who supported David Duke. It just doesn't’ make sense.
.
The fact is, while David Duke is a despicable human being, he hasn’t done a fraction of the harm to Black people as the Clintons. So it is my position that Black people who support the Clintons either have a self-serving agenda, or they are low-information voters - and with respect to Tavis Smiley and Cornel West, it didn’t take me but a short time to find that the former was true. Yeah, I know. West supported Bernie Sanders this time, but let us not forget that West makes much of his living speaking on college campuses, and young college students make up much of Bernie's base. So there's a method to Cornel's madness.  But this is not about Cornel West. Let's discuss the Clintons.
.
The Clintons were involved in a scheme that completely destroyed hundreds of thousands of Black lives, and is still having a negative impact on Black people.  There's currently a huge part of an entire generation of young Black people who don't know anything about their culture, and don't really know what it means to be Black, because the people who were responsible for teaching them were either dead, in prison, or mentally disabled by the affects of crack cocaine. As a direct result, instead of developing their potential and preparing for the future, many of these young people, who were literally raised by the corporate media, has been conditioned to believe that their role in life is to be criminals, drug addicts, and at the very bottom of society. In addition, they're being mesmerized by the media by being fed a constant diet of music that celebrates drug use, killing one another, and referring to the very womb of their culture as "bitches and hoes." So their fate is all but sealed. Yet, many Black people are falling all over one another to put two of the people who are hugely responsible for this state of affairs back into the White House. The situation is beyond sad, it's disgusting, and being forced to choose between Clinton and Trump is like having to choose between cyanide or strychnine.

.

But while many Black people are asleep, karma has been wide awake. By the time Reagan died he was not only wearing a diaper, but he couldn't even remember that he used to be president. 

.

BILL CLINTON AND THE MENA CONNECTION

When Bill Clinton was the governor of Arkansas, he colluded with the Reagan administration to flood the Black community with crack cocaine in order to fund Reagan’s illegal war in Nicaragua. Then when he became president he signed the most draconian crime bill in the history of the United States and created the prison industrial complex that led to the mass incarceration of the victims of his crime - Black people. There after, that very same prison industrial complex became one of Hillary Clinton’s biggest political contributors. Then, when he wanted to get himself and Hillary back into the White House, Bill went to the NAACP and tried to apologize for it.  So during the primaries I was shocked at how few Black people knew about this stuff, and how they flocked to Hillary Clinton's side. I began writing about it, but many Black people just seemed mesmerized by the Clintons.  I just wish I had started writing about it a year before the primaries began.
.
Because the fact is, Bill and Hillary Clinton are conservatives in drag. They walk like liberals, and talk like liberals, but they always leave conservative policies behind. In fact, they've been more successful in passing fiscally conservative legislation than the GOP -  the passing of NAFTA, allowing corporations to send $20 an hour jobs out of the country to be performed for $5 an hour in other countries; the gutting of Glass-Steagall, allowing commercial banks to gamble with our deposits, and led directly to the 2008 Wall St. crisis; the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine, leading to the dumbing down of America, and making propagandist networks like FOX News possible, etc., etc.
.
Thus, Bill and Hillary Clinton are "Republicrats" whose primary mission in life is to drag the Democratic party to the right. Hillary is the same closet Republican that she’s always been (President of the “Young Republicans" in college), and Bill is a White Southern Dixiecrat. When Hillary was running against Barack Obama in 2008, in an attempt to get Ted Kennedy's support, Bill Clinton said, "A few years ago this guy would have been carrying our bags."  True liberals don't talk like that. In fact, the reaction of one of my White neighbors to the comment is how I found out about it.  She called me screaming over the phone - "Did you hear what that racist bastard said about Barack Obama!!!?" So the Clintons are far from liberal; they're just just calculating. They saw which way the wind was blowing during the sixties, and made the cynical decision to take advantage of it.
.

.

Snopes: "On April 23, 2016, Charles Koch was briefly on air on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopolous. During that interview, ABC Correspondent Jonathan Karl asked Koch, “So is it possible that another Clinton could be better than another Republican this time around?"
Koch responded, 'It’s possible. It’s possible.' When pushed by Karl about whether he could see himself supporting Hillary Clinton, Koch hesitated, 'Well... we would have to believe her actions will be quite different from her rhetoric, let’s put it that way' - and it always is.

Hillary specializes in "dog-whistling" - saying things to the public in a way that has an entirely different meaning to the 'dogs' who are listening than it does to the general population (the assassination remark is a perfect example of that).   In addition, James Comey, the head of the FBI, who didn’t indict Hillary in spite of clear evidence that she committed several crimes that others have gone to jail for, is a Republican. And if we weren't existing in a plutocratic environment,  based purely on the FBI director's comment that she was "extremely careless" with classified information, at the very least, Hillary Clinton should be stripped of her security clearance, making it impossible for her to run for president.
.
So we’re being played - again.  It's no longer Democrats against Republicans, it's a sibling rivalry between oligarchs. It's no longer about liberals protecting America from the greed and excesses of conservatives, it's about which faction of conservatives are going to control America. So the people have simply got to insist that this woman step aside. Sixteen years later America is still suffering from the adverse affects of the last time we allowed the Clintons in the White House. Let us not cut our throats again.  And Black people, please wake up.
.

"New Democrats, also called Centrist Democrats, Clinton Democrats or Moderate Democrats, is an ideologically "centrist" faction within the Democratic Party that emerged after the victory of Republican George H. W. Bush in the 1988 presidential election." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrats
.

So please watch this video - and before you fluff it off as just another hit piece on the Clintons, notice that the investigators in the video were Clinton supporters, so they tried their best not to make Bill look bad, but these are prosecutors, and the facts are the facts. In addition, this is not just some video thrown together by Clinton haters; this is a 2 1/2 hr. documentary base on news footage of the time. In fact, it's not really even about the Clintons. It’s about the Iran/Contra scandal, the Clintons are just involved. So there’s no wiggle room here concerning the Clintons. The video is completely legitimate. In fact, one of the reporters in the video won a Pulitzer Prize.

.

CIA AND DRUG TRAFFICKING

.

"In the 623rd paragraph, the report described a cable from the CIA's Directorate of Operations dated October 22, 1982, describing a prospective meeting between Contra leaders in Costa Rica for "an exchange in [the United States] of narcotics for arms, which then are shipped to Nicaragua."[16][non-primary source needed] The two main Contra groups, US arms dealers, and a lieutenant of a drug ring which imported drugs from Latin America to the US west coast were set to attend the Costa Rica meeting. The lieutenant trafficker was also a Contra, and the CIA knew that there was an arms-for-drugs shuttle and did nothing to stop it.
.
"The report stated that the CIA had requested the Justice Department return $36,800 to a member of the Meneses drug ring, which had been seized by DEA agents in the Frogman raid in San Francisco. The CIA's Inspector General said the Agency wanted the money returned "to protect an operational equity, i.e., a Contra support group in which it [CIA] had an operational interest."

Testimony of the CIA Inspector General

.
"Six weeks after the declassified and heavily censored report was made public, Inspector General Hitz testified before a House congressional committee.[15] Hitz stated that:

"Volume II ... will be devoted to a detailed treatment of what was known to CIA regarding dozens of people and a number of companies connected in some fashion to the Contra program or the Contra movement that were the subject of any sort of drug trafficking allegations. Each is closely examined in terms of their relationship with CIA, the drug trafficking activity that was alleged, the actions CIA took in response to the allegations, and the extent of information concerning the allegations that was Shared with U.S. law enforcement and Congress.
.
"As I said earlier, we have found no evidence in the course of this lengthy investigation of any conspiracy by CIA or its employees to bring drugs into the United States. However, during the Contra era, CIA worked with a variety of people to support the Contra program. These included CIA assets, pilots who ferried supplies to the Contras, as well as Contra officials and others. Let me be frank about what we are finding. There are instances where CIA did not, in an expeditious or consistent fashion, cut off relationships with individuals supporting the Contra program who were alleged to have engaged in drug trafficking activity or take action to resolve the allegations.
.
"Hitz also said that under an agreement in 1982 between Ronald Reagan's Attorney General William French Smith and the CIA, agency officers were not required to report allegations of drug trafficking involving non-employees, defined as paid and non-paid "assets"—pilots who ferried supplies to the contras, as well as contra officials and others.[17][18]
.
"This agreement, which had not previously been revealed, came at a time when there were allegations that the CIA was using drug dealers in its controversial covert operation to bring down the leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua.[18] Only after Congressional funds were restored in 1986 was the agreement modified to require the CIA to stop paying agents who it believed were involved in the drug trade"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_involvement_in_Contra_cocaine_trafficking
.

.

"A citizenry of sheep begets a government of wolves." - Edward R. Murrow

.
Eric L. Wattree
http://wattree.blogspot.com/
Ewattree@Gmail.com
Citizens Against Reckless Middle-Class Abuse (CARMA)
.
Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

Sphere: Related Content

DID HILLARY CLINTON TRY TO 'DOG-WHISTLE' BARACK OBAMA'S ASSASSINATION?

Beneath the Spin * Eric L. Wattree

DID HILLARY CLINTON TRY TO 'DOG-WHISTLE' BARACK OBAMA'S ASSASSINATION?

.

POLITISPEAK FOR 

YOU'RE STILL A BARRY GOLDWATER REPUBLICAN,

RIGHT DOWN TO THE REPUBLICAN TALKING POINTS - 

AND WHAT'S A "NEW DEMOCRAT?"

Once Hillary Clinton became desperate over her all but certain loss to Barack Obama in the 2008 primaries, she began to continually allude to the assassination of Robert Kennedy during the 1968 primary. She kept repeating that "Calling all wingnuts!" 'dog whistle' as justification for why she didn't simply get out of the race.
.
But the mere mention of this episode seem to drive Clinton supporters up the wall. They say it’s "water under the bridge," and others try to make light of it as though I’m some sort of crazy conspiracy theorist - "Was Hillary also responsible for the sinking of the Lusitania, and by the way, where's her birth certificate?" But the fact is, this issue is not funny, and it can't just be fluffed off as water under the bridge. It should be seriously examined, because it strongly suggests that there's a very dark sociopath lurking beneath Hillary’s public facade.
.
What made Hillary's remarks seem much more malevolent than a simple gaffe was, as pointed out in a Keith Olbermann commentary below, someone had obviously told her that her mention of the word "assassination" was inappropriate, since Sen. Obama had been receiving death threats every since the day he threw his hat in the ring to run for president, so Hillary stopped using the word - temporarily. But as her situation became more dire and it was all but certain that she was going to lose to Sen. Obama, she began using the word "assassination" again.
.
And later, on May 11th 2008, while appearing on Meet The Press, Hillary’s campaign chairman, Terry McAuliffe, made the same kind of statement to Tim Russert. He said that in order for Hillary to win the nomination "something big" would have to happen. Then Russett asked, "An act of God, or something catastrophic?", and he said, "Yes, something big would have to happen–absolutely."
.
So how much farther did they have to go, say, "Calling all wingnuts! If somebody - ANYBODY - doesn't hurry up and kill this guy America could end up with a Black man for president!!!?"
.
So why did President Obama make Hillary his Secretary of State? That’s very simple. Obama had the good sense to understand that he needed to heal the rift within the Democratic Party so he threw her a bone. But while Bill was pushing for Hillary to be made Vice President, Obama had much better sense than to place her one heartbeat away from the presidency, because there’s one thing Barack has never been accused of, and that’s being a fool.
.
But this episode clearly shows that Hillary Clinton would do ANYTHING, no matter how horribly unconscionable, to appease her own ambition, and that's not a good thing in any leader. It also shows that while Hillary saw fit to change her party to accommodate her ambition, she’s more than managed to maintain her Republican instincts - she has absolutely no hesitation to play dirty politics, and she also lacks a sense of limits. Those are distinctly Republican traits. 
.
Hillary is quoted as saying, "I’ve gone from Barry Goldwater Republican to a new Democrat, but I think my underlying values has remained pretty constant; individual responsibility and community. I don’t see those as being mutually inconsistent."
.

AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HILLARY CLINTON IS -

PART OF THE PROBLEM

That sounds innocuous enough - who can be against personal responsibility and community? But it’s actually politispeak, a coded message to her corporate supporters that says, "the people are on their own." Those exact words - "individual responsibility and community" - are a major part of the Republican mantra; they could have come from the mouth of Paul Ryan. It's a coded slander of Black people (like "welfare queen"), and it implies that anyone who expects government assistance - like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans benefits or extended unemployment insurance - lacks personal responsibility. But what about corporate responsibility? "About $59 billion is spent on traditional social welfare programs. $92 billion is spent on corporate subsidies. So, the government spent 50% more on corporate welfare than it did on food stamps and housing assistance in 2006" - and one of Hillary's staunchest corporate supporters, Walmart, is one of the biggest corporate "welfare queens" in the country.
http://thinkbynumbers.org/government-spending/corporate-welfare/corporate-welfare-statistics-vs-social-welfare-statistics/
.
So as is clearly demonstrated in this very article, one should listen to Hillary Clinton very carefully, because she's always been big on subliminal messaging, and she’s extremely condescending toward the average American. She thinks we’re dumb, and unfortunately, many of us are. Why didn’t Hillary simply say, I’ve gone from Barry Goldwater Republican to a Democrat? Instead she said a "NEW Democrat." It’s quite simple - because in the code of politispeak they have two very different meanings. So what does Hillary mean by a "new Democrat?" I took the time to look it up for its exact meaning:
.

According to Wikipedia, "New Democrats, also called Centrist Democrats, Clinton Democrats, Moderate Democrats, or Neoliberal Democrats, is an ideologically centrist faction within the Democratic Party that emerged after the victory of Republican George H. W. Bush in the 1988 presidential election . . . The New Democrat Coalition is a Congressional Member Organization within the United States Congress made up of Democrats who support an agenda that the organization describes as moderate and pro-growth."
.
So it's Hillary's intent to come over from the Republican Party and redefine what it means to be a Democrat. She wants to push the party to the right so it will be more accommodating to the corporate agenda (or 1%ers), which also means, less accommodating to the people. Isn't that already the problem? Most liberals prefer the old Democrats, like Ted Kennedy and, yes, Bernie Sanders, who fight for the people. So liberal Democrats need to send a clear and unequivocal message by using the primaries to get rid of these so-called "New Democrats," because all they are, are just like Hillary - Corpora-Crats feigning to be Democrats in Democratic districts.
.

The fact is, both Bill, and Hillary, are Republicans in drag - and they always have been. While they talk and act liberal, whenever they walk away, they always tend to leave Republican policies behind, like NAFTA, that laid the foundation to outsource American jobs. They also managed to cut the throats of many poor Black, and White, welfare recipients and unskilled workers while in office.
.
"Clinton has been heavily criticized for overseeing the creation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which made it more affordable for manufacturing companies to outsource jobs to foreign countries and then import their product back to the United States. This policy caused a significant decrease in the amount of unskilled jobs in the United States." But When Clinton  signed NAFT into law (with a Republican majority), he said, "NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement).  Nevertheless, we see how it turned out.
.
So the fact is, Hillary, just like Bill, cannot be trusted. At the very least, she’s a fiscal conservative, and the only thing that she truly cares about is her own unquenchable ambition. Her every action is staged to manipulate "the little people," and if you pay close attention, you'll notice that even when she laughs it sounds forced and disingenuous.
.
Consider this. At seventeen years old she was working for the Barry Goldwater campaign, who pledged that if elected he would abolish the Civil Rights Act. Then in college she was not just a member of the "Young Republicans," she was their PRESIDENT!
.

Hillary supporters claim that’s all irrelevant. They claim that she was only a child at the time. But when carefully considered, that makes it even more relevant. A teenager generally merely "leans" toward a particular political philosophy, but not Hillary. Hillary was so dedicated to the conservative Republican philosophy that she actually got involved in Barry Goldwater’s campaign before she was even old enough to vote, and then later in college - while most left-leaning students were demonstrating against the Vietnam war, and protesting for Civil and women’s rights - she was the president of the "Young Republicans." That not only showed a deep commitment, but a deep dedication to conservatism.
.
Her supporters also try to fluff that off by saying, "Well, people change." While that may be true, people rarely change a commitment that is as deeply ingrained in them as the commitment that Hillary demonstrated toward Republicanism. One’s politics is much like one's religion - most people carry their predisposition to the grave, and there are many indications that Hillary is also doing just that, like joining forces with the neocons in her support for the invasion of Iraq, and her appeal to the "hard-working White people" during her 2008 campaign against Obama, and her cozy relationship with the corporate 1%ers. In addition, during her 2008 campaign against Obama, while trying to get Ted Kennedy’s support, it was reported by the New Yorker that Bill Clinton said to Kennedy regarding Barack Obama, "A few years ago, this guy would have been carrying our bags." True progressives don’t talk like that. He was sounding just like a White Southern politician behind closed doors - which is exactly what he was, and is - dark glasses and saxophone notwithstanding.  They don't call him "Slick Willie" for nothing.
.

Another indication of Hillary’s conservative predisposition could be observed in her behavior during her first high-profile position on the Board of Directors of Walmart. While she was in that position Walmart was undercutting labor unions, paying their workers slave-like wages, and discriminating against women by paying them less than they paid men for doing the same job, and Hillary didn’t say a word. The reason for that was simple - it wasn’t convenient for her to speak out at the time. Speaking out on behalf of women and the working class wouldn’t do anything to promote her ambition. It was a zero sum gain, and Hillary is not motivated by conviction; she's motivated by self-interest. But all of a sudden - now that she needs the votes of the working class - she’s trying to portray herself as a gladiator for the people, but that’ll only last until she gets into office. Then it’ll be business as usual - paying back political favors (like the $25,000 campaign donation that she received from Walmart), and building up future credits with other corporate elites for her next campaign.
.

A NO-LOSE ELECTION FOR CORPORATE ELITES
.
BILL 'SLICK WILLIE' CLINTON CALLS TRUMP

"A new Washington Post report reveals that Bill Clinton and Donald Trump had a private phone call weeks before Trump got in the presidential race, in which the former president reportedly “encouraged” Trump’s political efforts.
.
"Yes, this new report today from Robert Costa and Anne Gearan has people close to Trump and Clinton confirming they spoke some time in May.
.
"There was apparently no talk specifically of 2016, but the former president reportedly “encouraged Trump’s efforts to play a larger role in the Republican Party.” And while Clinton never explicitly encouraged The Donald to run against his wife, he also said Trump “was striking a chord with frustrated conservatives and was a rising force on the right.” http://www.mediaite.com/online/bill-clinton-and-trump-had-private-phone-call-weeks-before-trumps-2016-announcement/

.

So has Hillary Clinton really changed since her younger days of Republican activism? I don’t think so. I think that as an ambitious young woman of the sixties she saw what direction the wind was blowing. Thereafter, she made the cynical decision to switch parties in order to accommodate her ambition - Period.

.

.

Eric L. Wattree
wattree.blogspot.com
Ewattree@Gmail.com

.
Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

Sphere: Related Content

Hillary Clinton Might Make A Great President . . . But We Should Always Think Before We Anoint

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

Hillary Clinton Might Make A Great President . . . But We Should Always Think Before We Anoint

.

I've received a lot of flak from Hillary Clinton supporters over pointing out that she worked on the campaign of Republican, Barry Goldwater, and later, she was the president of the "Young Republicans" at Wellesley College. Her supporters went absolutely berserk over my bringing that out.  But I've long since recognized that people generally attack a position not so much because they think they're right, but because the facts or a given truth being revealed, challenges their preferred view of reality.  But that's what writing is about, isn't it - challenging comfortable assumptions.
.
All of the arguments put forward by Hillary's irate supporters challenging my position and/or motives were either weak, invalid, or based on gross and unwarranted assumptions. For example, the argument that when Hillary Clinton was campaigning for Barry Goldwater at 17, or when she was in college and became the president of the "Young Republicans," she was too young to have developed a fundamental political philosophy.  What evidence do they have of that?  When I was 14 I held the very same political philosophy - and attitudes - that I hold today.
.
So Hillary's tender age at the time she was engaging in these activities should not only be taken taken into account, they should actually serve to bolster my side of the equation. As I pointed out in a previous article, Hillary's political activities weren't just the dalliances of a young girl following in her mommie and daddy's conservative footsteps; she took it to the next level, and actually went to work on Barry Goldwater's campaign, and then she went on to become the PRESIDENT of the "Young Republicans" when she went to college. That reflected a passion, dedication, and commitment to the conservative cause. Thus, that should serve as a useful indicator of her fundamental predisposition. Politics is like religion. As we age we may modify and fine tune our beliefs, but most people take their fundamental belief system with them to the grave.
.
And the argument that Hillary's mentor, Saul Alinsky, was a liberal is also meaningless.  If Hillary's motive for spinning on a dime from Republican to Democrat was a cynical decision based on ambition and a recognition of which way the wind was blowing, the very first thing she would want to do would be to start building her new liberal credentials, and what better way to do that than to establish an association with someone like Saul Alinsky?  In addition, he would be invaluable in helping her to understand the progressive mindset and how to speak the language of a liberal.  And further, everything she's done since could have been in pursuit of building her liberal credentials. Just because Alinsky was her political mentor doesn't necessarily mean that she embraced his political philosophy. Perhaps what she wanted most from him was his strategic thinking, i.g., "True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism. They cut their hair, put on suits, and infiltrate the system from within."  That could be exactly what she's doing.
.
Now, I'm not saying that everything I've said above represent the facts, because I can't climb inside Hillary Clinton's head, but they are issues that should be pondered, because efficient thought refuses to elevate ANYTHING, or ANYBODY, above question. In fact, to think, IS to question. So those who are hostile toward questioning Hillary's, or anyone else's history, and take comfort in taking certain issues for granted, they're not thinkers; They're feelers - and one of the biggest problems that we have in this country today is that we have far too many feelers, and far too few thinkers. That's the only thing that sustains the Republican Party.
.

But with all that said, if Hillary Clinton is chosen as the Democratic nominee for president, I will support her enthusiastically, because she's head and shoulders above anyone who's running on the Republican side - and one should never become so fearful of the Bogie Man that he leaves the backdoor open for the Devil.
.
But of course, one might ask, if that's the bottom line, why did you even bother to go through this exercise? There's a very simple answer to that question.  Many in the Black community simply cast their vote for the "anointed one," without taking the time to find out who that person, or their opponent, really is. They tend to vote for the biggest celebrity. So I wanted to put something on the minds of such people, and encourage them to, at the very least, open their ears to the words of Sen. Bernie Sanders. He doesn't have Hillary's celebrity, but he was in the trenches with Martin Luther King while Hillary Clinton was still a Republican.
.

IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHO BERNIE SANDERS IS, THERE'S A REASON FOR THAT

.

.

Eric L. Wattree

Http://wattree.blogspot.com
Ewattree@Gmail.com
.

Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does. 

Sphere: Related Content